What does fairness look like to you in this scenario?

[JonahAndTheMinnow]

Parent 1 and parent 2 have been married for a long time and have four adult children. They’ve recently sold an asset and want to share £300k amongst their children.

All children are aged between 35 and 48.

Child A - Eldest child. Married with grown-up children who live independently. Mortgage cleared recently. Household income isn’t very high and they don’t have much of a pension pot so will likely rely on state pension and likely work to full retirement age.

Child B - Was a very young single parent. Their child is now grown up and B has a partner. They live together in B’s house (bought by B’s parents) and B has no mortgage. B is a very low earner with no personal pension and will rely on state pension and work until full retirement age. Their job is tough and very physically demanding and working to 65+ will be a challenge.

Child C - Has two children (teens) in full time education, one with severe physical disabilities who will never live independently. C can’t work due to caring needs. Her husband works and he has a pension which should see them both live a modest but comfortable retirement. Child is in receipt of disability benefits. C and her husband have about 4 years left on their mortgage. Monthly payment is low on a house worth over £500k, thanks to generous gifts from parents, but they’ll never be able to downsize as it’s custom built to meet needs of disabled child. They have a lot of additional costs linked to their child- physio, need for a vehicle that can meet their needs rather than a cheap run-around etc.

Child D - Youngest child. Vey high earner married to a very high earner. No children. High mortgage costs on a large home but will clear in next five years. Own several investment properties and an holiday home outright. D and spouse will retire early with significant pensions. Current unmortgaged assets valued in the millions and had an inheritance from spouse’s parents of £600k in 2020.

Parent 1 wants to split the money between children A, B, and C so they’ll each have £100k. 1 thinks they need the money more than D and it’s a life changing opportunity for them whereas it’s not for D. 1 thinks that treating people fairly doesn’t always mean treating people equally and circumstances have to be taken into account.

Parent 2 wants to split the money equally between all 4 giving them £75k each. 2 believes that all children in the family should be treated equally, regardless of their current position.

What do you think?

I'm a bit confused by B - B lives in a house bought by B's parents- who are parents 1 and 2, right?
So, if B got bought a house in the past and the others didn't, there might be some rationale for not splitting the money equally.
But normally I would say that splitting the money four ways is absolutely the way to go.

We were in a very similar situation with DH's parents gifting money to DH and his three siblings. The money was gifted evenly by the parents, and then the two children who had little/no need for the money gifted it to their siblings who did.

Sounds like sensible compassionate siblings. In that case the parents should also be able to speak to them and they agree without it turning to WW3.

I don't get this narrative of you just give me equal if not you don't love me.

OP can gift it equally and hope D gives it to the others or just have a mature conversation with D. OP knows her children and if she thinks D will be upset then divide it equally, if she thinks D is a reasonable person the speak to D.

This.

You have been wonderful parents, but you need to be really careful now.

Irrespective of what D earns, they absolutely need to be offered the exact same amount.

Have that chat with D.

If they say I don't need it, then fair enough, but otherwise they absolutely should receive the same amount.

The gift is more than just money IMO.

I would customise the gifts , I think the child with the disabled children will never have as much opportunity as te others so would leave them a bigger chunk

Why do you feel this way ? Children should be helped as they need , not equality but with equity , in fairness .
mas a example my oldest step son was offered a house at 21 , if I came into money I would nit offer him and the other 4 of our children ( mine and hubby ) the same since he was already ahead of gem with the benefit if owning a home

Split it equally.

The only way is to chat to Child D. Then you go from there.

Parent 2 is right and if anything like my rich sibling, child 4 will refuse the money and ask it to be split just between the other three.

actually, I am looking at it from the point of view of a parent, not a sibling.

What would be cruel would be to pick a favourite, and give them more. It would be also cruel to be judgmental and decide one needs more than the other.

If one is in investment banking, takes the stress and hours that go with the role while the other prefers a 9 to 5 or choses a hard career but famously under-paid, that's up to them. I would never reward or punish their choice by giving them more or less money. It's an awful way to treat your own kids.

They ALL deserve help. If one wants to share his part with another, that's entirely up to them.

You are not "blessed" you are doing well, never met an investment banker who felt a blessing fell on their lap. You work hard for it. Absolutely ridiculous to think a reasonable parent would punish you for it.

You are SO obviously child B.
And I think you’re being really unfair on your sibling. You got bought a house too ffs! Split equally would be more than fair! You sound bitter but you chose to have a child at 16. It’s irrelevant the age gap between your child and D, your child is a grandchild!! D is their actual chil.

Equal shares. Child D may well decide to gift it back, but she should definitely be included.

Seems like A and D have already been given much less!

@Sparehair

Yes my disabled sibling’s 1/3 was put into a special trust too.
They receive income from that and from another source.
I agree that circumstances vary, but I still think equal thirds or quarters is the best way forward. That way, no child (even the most well off one) can claim that their sibling was treated better. It’s more harmonious.
I’m all for harmony and less resentment.

Equal split, but as others said child B seems to have benefitted already with a house bought for them, so I think money should be adjusted for that, plus I think I would make sure there was protection for child B receiving money so that their partner couldn’t claim on it for like 5 years. Also think that parent C should be supplemented with a trust fund for the disabled child.

There's a fair bit of complexity to the family set up. Some dc feel others are favourites already.

Anything other than splitting equally sounds like it will lead to hurt feelings and family relationships being damaged.

Parent 2 regardless of any other money gifts they can or already had given before.
One thing is day to day help to those who made need it like sibling B and C and another split an asset and leave one of the children out.

Why they will leave it out, just because his luck choosing a career was better?, because doesn't have kids yet?

Parent 1 is thinking with the heart looking for the future of the siblings/grandkids. But the future is unknown and siblings D should not be left behind.
Parent 2 is thinking with the brain making a fair split.

Equal. Always equal

Child D may be made redundant tomorrow and have a few tenants not pay (and god forbid) go bankrupt in 6 months time.

I’d split it evenly with each child getting £75K.

My natural inclination is to agree with Parent 1 but in reality, Parent 2 has the most realistic grasp of the situation. Think of it not just as a monetary gift to your children, but gifting them continued family and sibling bonds and support, instead of sowing sibling rivalry.

It sounds complex anyway as it looks like you've already helped both Child B and C a lot financially with their houses?

Plus, you don't know what is really going on in D's life. Unlikely as it may seem, you also don't know what will happen to D decades into the future (burnout, divorce, family disability or death, secret debt, investment losses, etc).

Also finally, D could feel resentment as they might feel (whether fairly or unfairly) that they have striven to make good choices in earlier life like waiting until financially stable to have kids, making sacrifices for their career, etc.

I think what's not appreciated (pun!) is that B also got on the property ladder early compared to their siblings. The initial price of the house is less relevant than the timing. You keep mentioning the small investment capital (under 100k in today's money) but how much is B's house/area worth now?

I was able to buy early and get on the property ladder because my parents helped me out. Friends who waited years, because they didn't have that initial capital, can no longer buy in my area.

Many young people would buy a "cheap" house if they even had that sum of money, but sadly they don't. House prices appreciate like crazy even in a few years, and if you buy earlier, you'll be sitting on a lot more than you bought it for.

Four equal shares. Why should D be punished for doing well??

I'm a strong believer that fair doesn't have to mean equal and these parents have obviously helped their children differently in the past according to their needs. However, in this case divide equally amongst all 4. Anything else is trying to second guess the future and likely to cause unnecessary ill-feeling.

I’d also expect adults to be able to recognise that the most successful sibling has worked hard for that success and it is open to all the others to do the same.

I certainly wouldn’t find it fair that the sibling who was given a house was seen as more deserving than the sibling who has worked to pay for their own house.

Really, that's your logic? By that logic the disabled child may need urgent expensive care soon that the £75k will help with.

The chance of both child D and her husband being made redundant, and tenant stop paying at same time is so slim ors.nor going to happen, and guess what child D has options. She should have savings and investments if she earns such a high income, not having one is foolish on his or her part. They can sell the rental property if they cannot find another tenant, they can sell their holiday home as well. I'm sure you will agree doing away with your holiday home pales in comparison to what the other children have to deal with.